Norms of the Amendments to the Jūrmala Spatial Plan Do Not Comply with the Constitution
On Thursday, 13 November, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgement in Case No 2024-26-03. The Court found the norms of amendments to the spatial plan of the city of Jūrmala, which provided for changing the functional zoning of certain land units from the territory of the natural base to the territory of the construction of detached houses, to be inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court pointed out that, when envisaging the future development of land units, the municipality is obliged to assess, timely and accurately, the damage that such development could cause to the environment – even before determining the functional zoning of the development.
The case was initiated following an application submitted by the Jūrmala Protection Association, which aims to protect the environment and nature. According to the Association, the changes in the functional zoning of certain land units located in Stirnurags, Bulduri, Jaundubulti and Pumpuri are contrary to the principles of environmental protection. By providing that the disputed land units are to be transferred for construction, the municipality has not properly assessed the potential damage to the natural diversity, the specially protected plant and animal species, large trees and biotopes present there. Taking the above into account, the applicant’s right to live in a benevolent environment provided for in Article 115 of the Constitution has been infringed.
The Constitutional Court noted that in order to promote the sustainability of the State, a development planning system had been established, within the framework of which, inter alia, spatial planning documents were elaborated. One of the objectives of spatial planning, in line with the principle of sustainability, is to preserve and create a quality environment for present and future generations.
The principle of sustainability is also implemented through the municipality’s sustainable development strategy, which specifies priority development objectives and a spatial development perspective. Therefore, the spatial plan has to be developed in line with this strategy. The Court concluded that Jūrmala City Council, when carrying out the strategic assessment of the amendments to the Jūrmala State City Spatial Plan, had not complied with the obligation to coordinate the use of the territory with the Jūrmala Development Strategy 2010-2030. In particular, the development strategy calls for the avoidance of fragmentation of large forested areas, the preservation of the dune ecosystem, the protection of natural values and the accessibility of natural areas, allowing everyone to enjoy the proximity of nature in the city.
Moreover, the strategic assessment also fails to fulfil the obligation to timely and accurately assess and justify the damage that the implementation of the contested norms could cause to the environment. Already during the public deliberation on the amendments to the spatial plan, Jūrmala City Council received opinions from the competent authorities and a species and habitat expert from the Jūrmala Protection Association that the development of the disputed land units would have an irreversible impact on the specially protected habitat of forested seaside dunes and the specially protected plant and animal species it contained. Nevertheless, Jūrmala City Council postponed the precise assessment and substantiation of the environmental damage to the detailed planning stage, although it should have carried out these activities already at the stage of adoption of the spatial plan. Therefore, the risk of violation of the legal norms regulating the protection of species and biotopes, as well as the protection of specially protected areas (in the present case, the areas of venerable trees), has not been assessed when determining the development as the planned use of the disputed land units. The strategic assessment of the contested provisions has therefore been carried out improperly and, in the case under consideration, has resulted in a substantive procedural violation.
The Constitutional Court concluded that in order to ensure the sustainability of the amendments to the spatial plan, the Jūrmala City Council was also obliged to justify that the contested provisions had achieved a balance between environmental, social and economic interests. In particular, it had to justify that the public benefits outweighed the potential environmental harm; however, the documents amending the spatial plan did not provide a data-based justification to demonstrate this. Consequently, the Court found that the adoption of the binding regulation No 2 of the Jūrmala City Council of 25 January 2024 “On the approval of amendments to the territorial plan of the city of Jūrmala, the graphic part, the territory use and construction regulations”, paragraphs 2411, 2412 and 2413 of the territorial use and construction regulations, as well as the provisions of the graphic part, whereby the functional zoning of land units with cadastral designations 13 000 030 601, 13 000 075 408, 13 000 075 912, 13 000 112 702 and 13 000 123 101 was changed to a territory for the construction of detached houses, violated the principles of sustainability, precaution and evaluation and did not comply with Article 115 of the Constitution.
The contested provisions affect not only the rights of the residents of Jūrmala but also society as a whole. The task of the Constitutional Court is to minimise the infringement of the rights of society and to prevent the possibility that the application of the contested provisions could result in irreversible consequences. Therefore, the contested provisions were declared null and void as from the date of their entry into force, namely, from 6 February 2024.
The Court noted that one of the principles of spatial planning, the principle of continuity, only allows for the repeal of a spatial plan if another spatial plan is in force in the territory concerned. Thus, the Constitutional Court recognised that the norms of the previous Jūrmala City Spatial Plan approved by the Jūrmala City Council binding regulation No 8 of 24 March 2016, in the wording in force until 5 February 2024, were valid in respect of the disputed land units.
The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal; the judgement shall enter into force as of the date of its publication in the official publication Latvijas Vēstnesis.